China Censoring Flickr

An anonymous reader writes "It would appear that the Chinese government is currently censoring all photos on the site Flickr. A notice has been posted in a Flickr help forum about this, but the service currently doesn't have a fix for this. It would appear that China has turned on their Golden Shield Project to censor the site. 'Jain Hua Li, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he hadn't heard of Flickr until told about it in a conversation with a Chronicle reporter, and then suggested that the blocking may be because Chinese authorities are trying to protect children from racy images. Lucie Morillon, the U.S. representative for Reporters Without Borders, a French group that promotes free expression, said that the Beijing government often censors Web sites under the guise of protecting children or national security. She called the blocking of Flickr "one more blow against the free flow of information online by Chinese authorities" and added that it is particularly lamentable in light of promises by China to loosen restrictions before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.' Thomas Hawk has a well-considered opinion to offer on this issue."

Comments

Come on China,

[Apple Acolyte]

Stop giving dictatorial US law and policy makers new ideas!

Re:Come on China,

[Vicissidude]

Not only have US leaders thought of this, but they've already tried putting it into practice. Does no one remember the Communications Decency Act which passed into law and was eventually shot down by the Supreme Court? Every couple of years there's something new that they want to ban from adults due to "for the children" arguments.

Re:Come on China,

[Ash Vince]

I notice the moronic mods are out in force.

I actually thought the first post was quite funny but I suppose anyone suggesting that the US govt might like to censor anything is offensive to some people. The reality is that the US goverment and certain states in particular have a long history of censorship.

As usual, wikipedia has a pretty decent page on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Uni ted_States

I am not saying that the US is as bad as China, but no government is above trying to censor things they dont aggree with for any number of reasons.

Re:Come on China,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because banning pornographers from advertising to children is *totally* the same as China's suppression of all political or anti-Communist speech. Totally.

Re:Come on China,

[WilliamSChips]

An amendment to CDA banned all discussion of abortion on the Internet. Remember that they first came for the Communists because everybody hated Communists. Hopefully somebody will speak up when they come for you.

Re:Come on China,

[kamapuaa]

I try and avoid buying Chinese produce but this is bloody difficult nowadays being that the seem to make everything.

If you mean this as a small crusade to economically punish the Chinese state into your way of thinking, I'd view it as counter-productive - the state censorship was *strongest* when China had the weakest economy, and when it had the least amount of contact with the outside world. If China's export market crumbled the economy would take a big hit, but that would not mean the censorship would be rescinded or Chinese lives would get better.

I'd argue that here's definitely some relationship (if certainly not one-to-one) between China's economic success, and the growing liberalization of the nation. Additionally, the associated influx of foreigners to China has a small liberalizing effect.

Re:Come on China,

[WML MUNSON]

As usual, wikipedia has a pretty decent page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Uni ted_States

I am not saying that the US is as bad as China, but no government is above trying to censor things they dont aggree with for any number of reasons.

I'm currently in China and therefore I cannot view your Wikipedia link, but I'll take your word for it.

Thank God that wouldn't happen in the US

[illumnatLA]

Censorship under the guise of protecting our children or national security. Thank god that stuff only happens in China and not here in the United States...
Oh... er...
...nevermind

Re:Thank God that wouldn't happen in the US

[Travoltus]

Bad mouth a corporation and you can get hit with a SLAPP lawsuit.

That's how it's done in America: they don't use guns. They use lawyers.

Not News

[tarogue]

China censors the internet. It's what they do. How about an article of what China is *not* censoring?

Olympics will be exempt

[r00t]

That area of the country, for the time period of the games, will be treated differently. It'll look great. You'll be able to sit in your hotel room and view all the stuff you want. (pro-Tibetian Falon Gong porn, whatever...)

The rest of the country? No.

A month later? No.

BTW, don't check your business email or log in to the corporate VPN from China. You know the story: "all your trade secrets are blong to us".

So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys want us to buy all the stuff you make, and you don't want to allow your people access to the ideas we make.

How much longer are you going to let this authoritarian bullshit go on? Do you realize how powerful China could become if it embraced concepts like "the free exchange of ideas"? You guys could be mining helium on the Moon, then building interplanetary transportation and communication networks with the Europeans and the Africans (if they can also get their act together in the next few decades), while we Americans are visiting the Creation Museum in Kentucky and arguing about whether or not to allow gays to get married to each other.

Let go of your artificial attempts to control your society. They'll do fine. Let things evolve.

China (or India) could leave America in the dust in the first half of this century, if they want to.

Re:So let me get this straight

[trytoguess]

Kind of funny aint it? On the flip side if the U.S started putting more efforts into education and stopped trying to shape the world so much it could probably keep it's lead as the major world power. So... in the end it's just a rush to whoever loses their neurosis first eh lol?

A fix?

[nurb432]

Umm nothing is broken, its Chinas right to block whatever they feel is right.

Techincally if fickr circumvents this, they are violating China's wishes, and could be sued charged with treason and extradited.

Re:A fix?

[heinousjay]

Your legal knowledge is astounding.

If you don't like the Chinese Government...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Don't watch the Olympics. Let the media carrying the Olympics know that you're boycotting them, and will try to get others to join the cause vs. Chinese censorship. Try to avoid purchasing goods made in China, or from companies with close relationships with China. Otherwise, they'll continue to do what they want with all the money the West sends them...

Not Surprised

[sethstorm]

Since Yahoo learned what "Roll over" means in all the Chinese dialects, and how to say "Yes, sir" as well.

I've yet to know if they know what human rights means.

Shorter list

[aztektum]

Let's compile one of things China won't censor and save time

The Reason is Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of days ago was the anniversary of the Tianenmen Square Massacre. Several major sites were carrying a story about a Flickr album depicting the event. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party censors picked up on it and decided to block.

Re:Hackers For Freedom?

[Ash Vince]

China has a group of hackers that do nothing but make viruses, spyware, to try and infiltrate and sabotauge foreign computers.

In the real world, or just in Command and Conquer Generals?

I thought that most spyware originated in the US where you could sell marketing data you gathered for the greatest returns.

How much longer?

[nurb432]

How much longer will we ( the world ) continue to ignore their own moral issues with China in return for cheap goods? A long long long time.

Re:there is something greater in importance

[JesseMcDonald]

Ummm, the chinese have a *right* to live however they want

Exactly. The individual Chinese have every right to live however they want, until they try to force their preferences onto others, or make threats against them. If some (or all) of them don't want to be censored, they have every right not to be.

Using Censorship against them

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Seems if you want something not to be pirated in China, how about adding extras like the Dalai Lama, Falon Gong or Tiananmen Square? Software makers, be sure to feature a Falon Gong extra in the tutorials. Movie makers: How about a cameo by the Dalai Lama in the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Google Maps: when you zoom in on Tiananmen, show perspective mapped photos of what really happened.

Seriously: I have a friend who just got back from a visit in China. He said the Communist Party is very scared about losing its grip on society. They've very, very worried about losing control. Something you haven't heard in the mainstream media: Chinese, particularly the poorer ones, are really sick of the rich getting richer. When the Chinese Government wants to build a road, they pick a poor area, flatten it and kick the poor locals out. Increasingly, people are getting sick of it and the government is worried: This is why they're banning things left, right and center: http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2275.asp http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK165285 .htm http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/asia/21cnd -china.html?ex=1337400000&en=578ee101ec63e955&ei=5 090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Re:Any confirmation?

[icydog]

Yes, I first started noticing this at the end of last week (around Wednesday or Thursday). Flickr photos worked fine up until then; now all images (JPGs?) from flickr domains are blocked, even the logos, icons, buttons, and such that are part of the site layout. I'm in Shanghai.

Re:so you tell me

[Tom]

all people SHOULD BE equal? That is the current consensus in western society, yes.

is there another way to look at this issue? Hundreds. In fact, mankind has lived 99% of it's existence subscribing to non-equality. The very same way we would call someone antisocial or insane if he claimed that group X is more or less valuable than other humans, the same way you would have been looked at as a nutcase in most of human history. People would be upset and consider you endangering their very morals if you had claimed that slaves, jews, christians, greeks, women or whatever they oppress in their society are equals.

And I'm not even starting to discuss the main problem: How exactly do you define "equal" ?

Re:do you believe in progress?

[Tom]

slavery still exists. it always will, under the radar, in some form or another. does this mean you stop fighting slavery? furthermore, at some point in the past, slavery was more prevalent than it was today. so is this proof of progress in the world? It is an excellent argument against your "universal human rights". Because for millenia slavery was perfectly acceptable in most human societies. How do you dig that? By claiming "progress"? That the "universal human rights" have only been discovered recently?

Now, there are only two ways to parse this: Either, progress is inherent and any future state is by definition advanced to any past state.
Or, you include a judgement by deciding what you consider progress and what not. Judgements are always based on values. Values are relative. Q.E.D.

and how do i define equal? very simply: equal in rights and priveledges. equal in accountability and responsibility. what's so complicated about that? The words are easy. Making them real is what's complicated. Here, I'll give you an example to chew on: Is discrimination by age ok or not? If it is ok, does that not break your equality request? If it is not ok, do you really believe a 2-year old should have the same rights, privileges, accountability and responsibility as a 20-year old?

Ah, now you'll say "you moron, that distinction is based on biological facts and makes sense!". To which I'll reply either a) yes, but the lines we draw are not, 16, 18 or 21 years are simply arbitrary lines or b) racism is also based on biological facts, and for most of human history, it did make sense (it doesn't anymore, in western society, true).

yes, those people would be upset. bigots, racists, the ignorant: they get upset when you suggest to them that all human beings are equal. and? so what? because a moron or an evil asshole is upset we should let those slaves, greeks, women, etc. continue to live as unequals? huh? See, and that's the point. Those people would say the exact same thing about you.

Now, assuming that I am autistic, have no social sense whatsoever and am completely removed from reality (hey, your assumption, not mine), explain to me in objective terms why you are right and they are assholes. Spare us another back-and-forth and find arguments that they could not use just as well.

Here's a hint: You'll not be able to. Everything you can say is based on values, which are relative.

so what is your problem exactly? are you yourself ignorant or a bigot? My "problem" is that I prefer understanding people to condemning them. Understanding means accepting their values as true for the moment. It doesn't matter if those values are the ten commandments or the belief that women are not really humans. If you want to understand what's going on with someone, you have to take those beliefs and accept them, just for the moment, because your own values get in the way of understanding.

And understanding, to me, is what enables us to live peacefully with each other, on every scale from individuals to nations.

Re:i'm not a fundamentalist

[Tom]

fundamentalism is my enemy That is weird, you know? Because usually the position of absolute moral values is the position of the fundamentalist. Actually, that's pretty much what the word means.

at the same time, i hew to moral equivalency: that humanity has more in common in values than differences. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. Yes, humanity has lots in common. If more or less depends on how you enumerate, so let's just ignore that. It seems the whole thing is that we approach from different directions. I'm trying to understand humanity by what Korzybski calls extension, while you appear to define the world according to the principle of intension. Which includes why you look for common properties and I look for differences.

The thing with humans is: You don't do them justify if you treat them equal. Because they aren't equal. "Each according to his (needs/abilities/personality/etc)" is more just and ethical to me than "Each the same".

you however, seem prepared to use moral relativism to excuse the most heinous evil. Not to excuse it, to understand it. If we want to prevent another Hitler, Stalin, Bush, etc. we need to understand what's going on, why do the apparently worst people get into power with such frightening regularity?
You can't understand that if all the time you're thinking "They shouldn't. This is evil."

you realize these are contradictory positions for you to take, right? No, I don't, because these are not positions I am taking. These are positions you are putting me into, no matter how often I step out of them and say "no, thanks, I feel I'd rather stand over here".

you either CARE about people in iraq, in which case you will wind up getting involved under certain conditions. or you DON'T care about people in iraq, Either with us or against us. Either good or evil. Either white or slave. Either christian or terrorist. Either believer or burn-them-all-heretic.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to dualism anymore. Which is why you will not get a "yes or no" answer out of me, I much prefer pointing out that there are other options besides "yes" and "no".

pick a pov, and stick with it. but your current one foot in one pov and one foot in another is morally and intellectually empty and bankrupt Only if your world is black and white. Once you accept that there are shades of gray, and sometimes even colours, you realize that the only thing that's empty is this stupid dualistic world-view.

and ps: intent is everything. [...] if intent doesn't have any meaning in your judgments See, that's a great example. I didn't say intent has no meaning. I do say that it isn't everything. If you intend to save a child, and you fuck up and press the wrong button and kill a hundred people, I'll not call you a saint because your intent was clean.

But to understand that, you will have to first accept that there are things inbetween the poles of "intent is everything" and "intent is nothing". How about we start simple? Let's say intent is 50% and actual result is 50%. Can you wrap your mind around that?

Because, you know, your example back up backs up me, not you. Yes, we make a difference between murder and manslaughter. But we still put people in jail who kill others, even if it wasn't intentionally or the intent can't be proven. So at least the justice system agrees that intent is not everything.

Re:i think i'm beginning to understand your proble

[Tom]

universal human rights always existed, exists everywhere now, and always will exist Is that a belief or a fact?
If it is a fact, please point me to the evidence of universal human rights, say, 200 million years ago, when there were no humans.
Ok, that's an invalid argument you say, so let's kill your second all-quantor. Please point me to the universal human rights in the Andromeda galaxy. Hey, you said "everywhere", not me. :-)

No, I'm not just playing stupid here. There's a point. The point is that your definition lacks. If you agree that "universal human rights" can't have existed before humans did, then how and when (and why!) did they come into existence? Can they change over time? If not, why not? According to what we know of the world, pretty much nothing is that eternally static.

the problem of course, is execution: it's hard to implement. but because something is hard to implement, you seem to take this as an excuse to disavow universal human rights Nope. The main problem isn't even execution. The main problem is definition. Sorry, but I work with lawyers a lot. You mentioned the French Revolution in another reply. A quote from during the French Revolution goes like this: "Give me 10 lines, written by the purest of man, and I will find something in there the hang him."
The "universal human rights" are just words. And words are subject to interpretation. And once you move away from the very generic, very abstract to the level of actual life, you find out that it isn't half as easy just to define precisely what you mean. Heck, there's a whole area of science dealing with nothing but that.

pedophilia will never be exterminated. it will always recur in society again and again in low grade percentages because there are always biological and psychological and developmental random events which renders some poor souls pedophiles

now, what to do about them? First, as you expected, I'd request a definition of "pedophilia". Because, you know, our current definition is flawed. In my country, a 16 year old boy sleeping with his girlfriend today can go to jail. Next week, everything will be fine. Why? Because she's got her 16th birthday this weekend.

So, first we need a better definition of the crime. Yes, you can handwave that and talk about extreme cases, so let's do that. A 50 year old sleeping with a 10 year old.

Did I mention that this was fairly common in ancient greece? Plato, Aristotle, all the heroes of western thinking were child-fuckers. And homosexuals.

So, if we are on the level of an individual case, why not treat it that way? Check what the guy says, check what the boy says. Find out what really went on. And then I would strongly suggest not making pedophelia the crime. If the boy was hurt, physically or psychologically, then that is the crime. Pedophelia is just a label.

my pov is: war must be waged agains tpedophilia. forever. and i think it is a war that will never be won. it's simply the maintenance of civilization. the wages of living in society And I don't like war. We already have far too many. The war against drugs, the war against piracy, the war against childfuckers, and so on. At the current rate, in 2-300 years, our entire civilisation will consist of wars against everything.

I'd rather fight for things than against them. Can you re-formulate your POV in a way that states what you're actually for, not just what you're against?

you have this weird break in your mind though where somehow, because a task is difficult, or cloudy and not precisely defined, or not guaranteed, or not easy, that it shouldn't be attempted Not that again, please, it's getting boring. You know nothing about me. You don't even know that my job quite often consists in making a reality what others consider impossible. In fact, I rarely give up. I like difficult.
Which is why my view of the world is multi-dimensional. It's more difficult that way. :-)
But it's also closer to reality, which also consists of at least four dimensions.

again, your essential problem: asperger's

[circletimessquare]

science and logic. ha!

you want to reduce humanity to a math problem

"Compassion is an emotion evolved through natural selection to facilitate the survival of the species. The same goes for all of our primitive moral instincts. They are nothing more than techniques that improve our fitness for natural selection."

yes, agreed 100%. and? is it ever another way?

"You can kick and scream all you like (and that's all you have done here) but in the end your position isn't logical."

no, it's not logical. nor will it ever be. not my position, that is, but this entire subject matter. duh! (slaps forehead) more asperger's syndrome: you don't understand humanity. it's not a math problem Rainman

"Logically when it comes to the actions of an individual there is nothing more than the power to make something happen and the will to make it happen. I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."

yes! 100% i agree! but, you see these realizations as a problem that needs to be overcome. DUDE. THEY WILL NEVER BE OVERCOME. THAT'S HUMANITY

"I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."

YES 100% CORRECT. AND? WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? IT NEVER WILL BE SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE AND LOGIC

DUH!

welcome to what most kids realize in kindergarten when interacting with other kids. maybe you can graduate to the first grade now, my dear intellectual charity case

now: your job is to get used to that rock of gibraltar, and WORK within those constraints. not think that those constraints could ever be overcome

i think we're making progress with you

ever see the movie Rainman with tom cruise and dustin hoffman? i feel like tom cruise to your dustin hoffman. Rainman could read into a 7 deck shoe and calculate the number of toothpicks on a floor just by looking at it

he also thought a candy bar and a car were about $100. he was very good with numbers, not very good with the human element

as are you. you can read all sorts of fancy philosophers and build castles in the sky about how humanity should be if humanity just started behaving in ways it has never behaved in all of history and all cultures nor will ever behave. ever

currently your pov is that you're not going to contribute anything to the struggle for progress until humanity suddenly starts acting accoridng to your impossible standards

autistic. retarded. poor social skills. you are in an elected office? ha!

dude, i have a better idea:

"Logically when it comes to the actions of an individual there is nothing more than the power to make something happen and the will to make it happen. I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."

i suggest you start with this realization of yours above as the constraint in how you think of humanity from this point forward. previously, you have used this realization as an excuse to stop working with humanity, period. you wanted humanity to suddenly start behaving in a fashion it can't behave. nice excuse to defer your human conscience. don't work no more. no more deferring

i'm sorry Rainman. humanity isn't changing in the working parameters of how it behaves. so you better, in order to help contribute to progress in this world, get used to the illogical irrational human being. it's beliefs and its passions. work with it

but not working with it all because you want everyone to be a machine is just retarded